As technological innovation is accelerating to upgrade and making intensive breakthroughs at present, new challenges emerge while new drivers are injected into economic and social development. For example, the systematic breakthrough of some cutting-edge basic research and core technologies requires further coordination and cooperation across disciplines, industries, systems, and boundaries. However, unilateralism, isolationism and closureism have been gradually embraced by some developed countries, leading to severe impacts on normal academic exchanges, scientific cooperation, and personnel exchange for international technological cooperation. For example, technological innovation elements and activities show a sign of polarization while the Matthew Effect is increasingly apparent, which worsens cross-regional imbalance to some extent. For another example, many aged people cannot adapt themselves to fast-changing technologies and feel confused in ever-smart living scenarios. These signs show that new misalignment, inadaptation, and imbalance have emerged in economic and social development at home and abroad in the context of accelerated technological advancement. They need enough attention and response from the practice of technological innovation governance.

First, cognitive gaps need to be bridged. Technological innovation in itself is a giant and complex system that involves many subjects and intertwines many factors, structures, and functions. Because of different standpoints and values, different subjects in the system naturally have different views on the same thing. What is important is to value the differences and seek common ground. The premise is to respect each other and treat each other on an equal ground, which is known as “enculturation”. Then, empathy and positive dialogs are required.

Second, we need to build a balance mechanism. In the context of rapid technological iteration, the responses and abilities vary in different regions, industries, and populations. Therefore, technological innovation governance should consider balance while focusing on efficiency. When we are analyzing the policy demand structures for different populations, large enterprises, SMEs, market entities, public institutions, institutional organizations, and new research agencies have varying demands and require corresponding policies. In addition, complementary capabilities should also become an important issue in technological innovation governance. For example, the project of channeling computing resources from the east to the west constructs a national computing network system. It allocates computing resources to the more cost-effective western region, then collects data and applies results to the more economically developed eastern region, thus realizing the optimal allocation of resources and capabilities. Besides, the “new infrastructure” is also an important driver for establishing the balance mechanism in technological innovation governance, which smoothens the element flow and facilitates information sharing.

Third, we need to further improve the technological innovation governance system. This system also has “four beams and eight pillars”. The “four beams” of the system refer to the realization of highly independent technological capabilities, the guarantee of high-quality development, the fulfillment of the need for a better life, and the response to common challenges of mankind. The “eight pillars” supporting the beams are the formation mechanism of technological strategies and major technological decisions, the mechanism of technological program management and major scientific research organizations, the mechanism of resource guarantee and condition guarantee, the mechanism of governmental function transformation and policy supply, the new nationwide system of core technologies, the cultivation mechanism of strategic technological power, the mechanism of regional innovative coordination and international technological cooperation, and the mechanism of social mobilization and organization. In addition, various software and hardware conditions are required, along with a good innovation ecosystem and social and cultural atmosphere. The technological innovation governance system is not about simple accumulations of elements. It requires a reasonable structure design to form systematic capabilities to confront global technological and industrial competition.

Fourth, we need to form innovation synergy. As scientific research paradigms, technological innovation modes, and scientific research organization forms are upgrading and developing, technological innovation is more and more platform-based, digitalized, network-based, and commercialized. The traditional “scientist + lab” scientific research mode is being overset. More innovation activities emerge outside the system. The social innovation power is rapidly showing its strength. The strategic scientific and technological strength is in a sense a combination of institutional scientific and technological capabilities and social innovation capabilities. The former is possessed by colleges, universities, academic institutions, and state-owned enterprises, and has advantages in human resources, scientific research platforms, and research and investment inputs. The latter is possessed by SMEs, new scientific research organizations, and the public. For some time in the future, the focus of technological innovation governance shall be more inclined to social innovation capabilities. Institutional scientific and technological capabilities shall provide functionally guarantee the governance and create more possibilities. Social innovation capabilities can also in turn energize the institutional scientific and technological capabilities.

Fifth, we need to further the cooperation connotation. An example of multi-subject collaborative governance is the “Knowledge Economy Circle around Tongji University” in Yangpu District, Shanghai, of which the output hit nearly 50 billion in 2020 on an area of only 2.6 square kilometers. While boosting the local economic development with knowledge spillover, Tongji University has also closed a positive loop represented by fast-growing disciplines. In the new development context, however, the demand side and the supply side around Tongji University are facing new changes. We must therefore further deepen the connotation of collaborative governance, innovate in the cooperation model, and build the area into the best practice of regional collaborative governance in terms of boosting innovation capability improvement, shaping new momentum for regional economic and social development, and satisfying residents’ needs for a better life.

Of course, the bridging of technological innovation governance is far more than the five aspects mentioned above. Optional strategies also include institutional opening, multi-dimensional empowerment, institutional innovation, improvement of gap-filling organizations, enhancement of innovative network resilience, forward-looking governance, and regional cooperation.

Source: Wen Wei Po, February 8, 2022